Apologetics isn't for the lost, it's for the saved

[Rainforestgoddess]

I find this interesting.

This weekend preachers, evangelists, and hobby apologists from all over congregated to participate in the 21st annual National Conference on Christian Apologetics in Charlotte, North Carolina. This year the event was hosted by Richard Land, who used to head up my old denomination’s Religious Liberty Commission but earlier this year assumed the presidency of Southern Evangelical Seminary. Noting that the religiously unaffiliated may one day overtake the faithful in numbers, Land sees apologetics as a central function in the church of the future. - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2014/10/12/apologetics-isnt-for-the-lost-its-for-the-saved/#sthash.ktC9ONZQ.dpuf

[rug]

1. He sounds bitter.

Eh, forgive me but apologetics isn’t for the lost, it’s for the saved. It exists to convince people who already believe that they aren’t being foolish to do so.

No wonder he left.

[skepticscott]

2. Apologetics is for people

who are embarrassed by religion but can't give it up.

[cbayer]

3. I think this author does not really understand the definition of apologetics or apologists.

It sounds bad because of the common use of apology, but it is actually a systematic and academic defense of one's position. It is, of course, used by religious believers to make a case for their beliefs, but it doesn't mean they are apologizing or trying to justify to themselves their position.

People often use "apologist" to criticize others, but that is not what it means.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. I don't think he uses it as 'apologizing' once; I think all his uses are consistent

with the normal meaning - " It is “the defense of the faith” and not a tool of evangelism", "I used to be into apologetics when I was a Christian ... I bought the books and read them, studying their arguments in order to be better prepared to defend my faith against attack from the outside", "it’s about convincing yourself that you have good reasons for believing what you believe so that you can sleep better at night" and so forth.

He is saying it's about a defence of faith, as opposed to evangelism and missions (which is what Richard Land thinks). You may call that justifying ones position, but I think that is the same as defending it.

[Hoppy]

6. I guess that is the point.

If you believe in what you believe in, you don't need to be prepared to defend it.

I don't feel a need to go nuts defending the Earth is not the center of the universe. If someone wants to believe differently, that is fine.

[cbayer]

9. I agree that it is about defending it by using solid information.

And I see the distinct difference from evangelizing.

What I don't agree with is his emphasis on how it is a tool for convincing yourself that what you believe is right. I think it's about convincing others.

He changes the definition, imo, in order to make it something that would indicate a weakness or failing.

[Cartoonist]

4. Comedy gold

The average person starts with heterosexual sex then after a while that no longer satisfies, then there’s anal, from anal there’s oral, from oral to homo, from homo to bestiality then to children.
-
The author of the article is quoting someone else here. I found the article to be very interesting indeed. And yes, the word apologetics is just the more scientific form of apologists. A more sophisticated form of making apologies for unprovable beliefs.

[cbayer]

10. It is not at all about making apologies.

You may not agree with it or find it in any way convincing, but your definition is flawed.

As for the quote, I also find it so bizarre that it is laughable.

[Hoppy]

7. I haven't gotten beyond anal. Am I -- lets see, I'm not supposed to use the word, retarded anymore,

Ah, I got it. Am I having trouble with my emerging sexual identity?

[pinto]

8. Interesting blog piece. I think the author may be framing the term solely in the evangelicals' use.

I get that. And framing it in his own experiences. I get that. Yet he seems to make assumptions based on those two views about the intent or purpose of the process. What it means to evangelicals, I've no clue. I can see what it means to the author somewhat though the piece reads kind of convoluted to me.

Both may be a piece of the pie but not the whole dish. In a religious framework I can see both "camps" employing the same meme, as he does here. The comments about the internet role are applicable, in some ways, across the whole range of opinions -

But is this really winning anybody to the faith? Is that even what they’re trying to do? I sincerely don’t see how it could be. It seems to me that this type of person is playing a game, and their goal is to say the right things at the right moment in order to feel they have won something. They’ve beaten you at building syllogisms and therefore…therefore…well, what, exactly? I don’t really see people being won over by this kind of thing. It looks and sounds something like conversation except usually it’s not. It’s usually dueling monologues (which I call “nonversations”), with each arguer coming away feeling he or she has bested the other when really neither side budged a bit. Spectators and lurkers sometimes benefit from this ritual, I am told, but I don’t see people very often being won over to the Christian faith from this game.

My understanding of the term is that it was originally a formal response, in a judicial sense, to a specific challenge. A response in a way, or opposing challenge, to cast doubt and defend a position. In modern terms the "case for the defense". Back and forth. A public discussion.

Personally, I wish doubt played a larger role in it all. I think that's the bigger picture. Doubt is a great opportunity, imo.

Obviously I'm rambling a bit, but the piece got me to thinking. Thanks for the post.

[cbayer]

11. He is most definitely framing it from his own experience, which has

been quite negative when it comes to religion.

I think you are correct about it's origins. It's root comes from the greek "speaking in defense". It's definition does not include what we generally think of as an apology. It doesn't indicate regret or having done something wrong for which one is sorry.